An issue concerning thousands of Canadians across the country is not currently being addressed due to national preoccupations with “more important problems” and a general Canadian tendency toward complacency regarding certain aspects of our system. However, this issue speaks directly to the values that inform our nation and our society, and how others will view our country. The concern here is Canada’s perceived attitude toward people with post-secondary educations, and more specifically how this attitude impacts the plight of those people burdened with huge student loans. If  we examine this matter closely, and in context, we should be ashamed of ourselves as a nation.

Ostensibly, Canada is proud of its highly educated population and its commitment to the arts. Statistics regarding post-secondary educations and the arts are often trotted out to impress ourselves, and to encourage foreign businesses and immigrants to come to Canada. These are merely numbers, and when we look at the day-to-day practices and policies of our system we quickly see that the arts matter very little to our government, and once people have post-secondary educations, boosting those impressive numbers, our government really  doesn’t have much use for them. In fact, it appears that our government is quite happy to reduce highly educated people to virtual serfdom.

Several years ago the Supreme Court of Canada decided that it was perfectly constitutional to apply a separate set of bankruptcy laws to people with student loans. There can be no clearer example of our system favouring the concerns of huge financial corporations over the needs and concerns of individual citizens. Additionally, these laws specify a particular group of people. This is a practice that would not stand if it was applied to any other group. This is a situation that borders on the absurd, and if we look at what this really means it is quite damning in what it reveals about our values.

If a young person decides to open a ski shop in Saskatchewan, borrows hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her business up and running, and the business folds, she can immediately file for bankruptcy. If a wealthy businessman in Ontario borrows money to build a summer cottage on a lake, buy a speed boat, and buy a SUV, and he finds that he cannot make his payments due to a setback in his business, he can immediately file for bankruptcy. However, if a young person goes to university in order to educate and better himself, and supposedly increase his chances of employment, borrows $50,000 to do so, nominally from the government, and after graduation finds that he cannot find work related to his degree, or that will allow him to repay this debt, he must wait ten years before he can apply for bankruptcy. It is true that for six years he can apply for interest relief if his income is low enough, but once those six years are up, he is thrown into a four year wilderness of debt, demands, threats, garnisheed wages, and constant harassment. The wolves are always at his door and he is powerless, helpless, and hopeless. If he seeks debt counseling or consolidation, he is told that they cannot help him as they do not deal with student loans. And even if he can attempt to make the minimum payments, he can look forward to being slowly bled for forty years.

If  enterprising individuals wish to become involved in the oil industry, and they spend millions of dollars on surveys, technicians, labs, drilling equipment, etc., and ultimately they find no oil, the government will reimburse them for those millions of dollars. However, if a working class student sinks a mere $50,000 of borrowed money into an education, in essence prospecting for job opportunities and a better life, and he or she finds no jobs or opportunities, the government will not pay the meager $50,000. In fact, the government will wash its hands of the matter all together and hand it off to a financial institution that will remorselessly come after the student for the entire amount, plus interest.

In light of these comparisons, what is the message the Canadian government wishes to send to its citizens? Essentially, it is this: If you have an arts degree we will applaud you and show you off to the country and the rest of the world. Beyond that we won’t have a blessed thing to do with you. Additionally, unless you are involved in business, or industry, or even if you simply enjoy expensive things, we will hold you to a different and less lenient set of laws and standards. We would rather destroy you, than help you. Is this right or just? Is this the message the Canadian and provincial governments wish to send to Canadians and the world?

I must now turn to my own situation, and I do not believe that it is unique, or even uncommon, in our country. In 2000 I graduated from Dalhousie University with a MA in English Literature. In the past six years I have not been able to live above the official poverty level, and I have been forced to leave my home province in order to find better employment. I now find myself working in a book store in Alberta, making more money than I was making in Nova Scotia, and certainly doing a job that is marginally degree related, but still living below the poverty line. I have exhausted my six years of interest relief and I now find myself in the four year period described earlier. Having considered my situation carefully and objectively, I have decided on a course of action. Instead of doing what most people in my predicament have generally been doing, and merely accepting the status quo, I have decided to defend myself and have sought to represent my case to our government. 

It is my position that the Canadian government owes The Royal Bank of Canada the sum of my Canada student loan and the Nova Scotia provincial government owes The Royal Bank of Canada the sum of  my provincial student loan. I do not know which departments will ultimately be responsible for these payments, but I intend to begin referring all phone calls and letters from the Royal Bank and outside collection agencies to the federal government and the NS government.

At the time that I amassed these student loans, there was, in addition to the signed agreement, a verbal agreement between myself and the Canadian and provincial governments that if I got an education (a BA, at that point) I would be certain to get employment that would allow me to repay my loans in a timely and comfortable fashion. I do not think that it is going too far to say that I was indoctrinated to believe this. Teachers (government employees), guidance counselors (government employees), and student loan officers (government employees) assured me repeatedly that this would be the case. Six years after not only completing a BA but a MA as well, this has proven to be untrue.

I do not blame the Royal Bank or the collection agencies for seeking to get their money. That is their function. Of the three parties involved in the original agreement regarding my student loans, the banks have fulfilled their part, and I have fulfilled, and even surpassed my part.  The only parties who have not fulfilled their end of the agreement are the federal government and the NS provincial government. Therefore, they are responsible for the amounts owing.

Universities do not have return policies. There is no recourse for compensation for being sold a relatively worthless piece of paper. If I had known back then that I was gambling with my future, for the considerable sum of $50,000, I might have gone down to Las Vegas and bet it at the roulette table instead. Of course, at the age of nineteen, I would not have been old enough to gamble according to the laws of Nevada.  In Canada I was old enough to make the life altering decision of putting myself $50,000 in debt but in Nevada I was not old enough to make the life altering decision to drink a beer or play a hand of blackjack.

I have been told that I will not have the opportunity to appear in a court to state my case, if this matter does go to the courts. It strikes me as thoroughly unfair that a person may not defend themselves against these sorts of actions and such questions of liability. As a result, I have turned to the federal and NS provincial governments to present my case for me. I have written letters to Howard Epstein, the MLA for the riding I grew up in in Halifax, and to Rahim Jaffer, my federal MP. Karen Casey, the Minister of Education for NS, and Diane Finley, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, will also be receiving letters informing them of their responsibilities in this matter. Hopefully, these efforts will produce results which Canadians can look to with satisfaction and pride, instead of disgust and shame.

My position may seem extreme, and I can appreciate that. We are getting quite used to seeing these sorts of practices and policies and most people simply shrug their shoulders and endure. This is a cynical and unpatriotic position to take. All Canadians should expect their government and courts to treat them fairly and justly, and that is all that I am asking, for myself and for the many people like me.

I would like to encourage others who find themselves under-employed, “over-educated”, and burdened by huge debt, and anybody else concerned with this problem, to write to their federal MPs and provincial MLAs and ask that this issue be addressed. I would also encourage them to do as I have done, and refer all collection inquiries concerning provincial and Canada student loans to their provincial ministers of education and the Hon. Diane Finley. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we should be determined to see that it is.